Global Warming or Climate Change: Which Is It?

In the latest attempt to spin doubt about the science, many skeptics and deniers are trying to argue that we’ve stopped using the term “global warming” and started using the term “climate change” in its place. Why would we do that? Well, because the world stopped warming more than a decade ago, or so the skeptics and deniers would have you believe.

Interestingly, as this video helps point out, Republican strategist Frank Luntz put out a memo ten years ago to the Bush administration and other conservatives recommending they use the term “climate change” because “global warming” sounded too scary. It’s easier to get people to be complacent about it if it doesn’t sounds as threatening.

For those who don’t understand the differences between those terms, I’ll try to clarify it. Greenhouse gases are the main culprit for the global warming our planet has experienced over the last century. Global warming manifests in many ways such as melting glaciers and ice caps, greater floods and droughts, more extreme weather events such as hurricanes, and sea level rise.

In other words, one of the many consequences of global warming is climate change. Increased emissions lead to global warming which leads to climate change. It’s as simple as that. It has nothing to do with trying to put a different spin on it.

Unless you’re a skeptic or denier who will try to argue the point. Just like you were advised to do a decade ago.

Global Warming Stopped in 1998—Not!

“A gentle warming of up to about 0.5 deg. C occurred between 1979 and 1998; but since 1998 global temperature has now been static or cooling gently for ten years, despite continuing increases in CO2 emissions.”
—Bob Carter, geologist specializing in palaeontology, stratigraphy, marine geology, and environmental science

I’m not sure how often you hear this sort of claim, but I get comments like this a lot. Many people who respond to this blog who aren’t convinced about global warming and climate change will refer to this “fact.”

But is it a fact? Many people point to the longer trends rather than just the span of less than fifteen years to refute claims that global warming has stopped. A popular reference being used is the escalator to the right which shows that depending on where you start and stop, you can refer to many periods where the trend in temperature seemed to remain static or even drop over shorter time spans. This simply underscores the importance of looking to a longer trend to know what’s really happening to surface temperatures. Continue reading

It’s All About Understanding the Science

A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
—Max Planck

I remember doing a high school experiment in one of my science classes. It had a big impact on me because I can’t say that I remember any other experiment as well. But it taught me an important scientific principle that I think few people appreciate.

The experiment had to do with the rather lofty-named concepts known as “Latent Heat of Fusion” and “Latent Heat of Vaporization.” All we did was took some ice, put it in a beaker, put the beaker on a hot plate, and put a thermometer inside the beaker to record the temperature. Since the ice started at a temperature below freezing, we watched the temperature slowly climb, then watched the ice melt, then continued to watch the temperature climb, then watched the water boil and evaporate, and then finally watched the temperature of the steam climb. Continue reading

Melting Arctic Sea Ice: The Canary in the Coal Mine

Over the last few months I’ve been reporting regularly about the record-breaking temperatures that have taken place all over the world, particularly within North America. Since this is the time of year when the Arctic ice cap is melting, wouldn’t we expect a warming planet to lead to more ice melting at the North Pole than has usually been seen in past years? If global warming is truly happening, can we see evidence of it in Santa’s neck of the woods?

Turns out that’s exactly what we’re seeing. Sea ice at the North Pole decreased so rapidly last month it broke the 2007 record. It was the most sea ice lost in the month of June since satellites have been able to accurately record the phenomenon. The total amount lost was measured at 1.1 million square miles, an area equal to the states of Alaska, Texas, California and Florida combined. At the end of June, the amount of sea ice lost was about three weeks ahead of schedule, and this is about 456,000 square miles below the average seen in the twenty year span from 1980 to 2000.

The next few months will confirm whether or not 2012 will be the worst loss of Arctic sea ice since satellite data has been available, because the minimum amount of polar ice isn’t reached until the month of September. It’s always possible that other factors could affect the present trend before then, but at this point it seems quite likely. As it stands, the trend is favouring this being the year with the greatest loss of Arctic sea ice in recorded history.

According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado, significant sea ice was lost in Beaufort, Bering, and Kara Seas, as well as in Baffin and Hudson Bays. In fact, the only region in the northern hemisphere with an above average amount of sea ice at the end of last month was the eastern coast of Greenland.

The NSIDC attributes the rapid loss of ice to the above-average temperatures the northern hemisphere has been experiencing as well as a lack of snow cover. According to them, “This rapid and early retreat of snow cover exposes large, darker underlying surfaces to the sun early in the season, fostering higher air temperatures and warmer soils.”

The Arctic is warming at a rate about twice that seen in more southern latitudes within the Northern Hemisphere. That’s due in part because of the positive-feedback mechanisms that occur in the Arctic climate. As warmer temperatures lead to the brighter and more reflective sea ice melting, more of the darker ocean is exposed which will do a better job of absorbing light from the sun and leading to more infrared radiation released.

I refer to this phenomenon in my book Comprehending the Climate Crisis. The following is found on pages 84-85.

[T]he loss of ice on our planet means there will be less sunlight reflected back into space. White snow and ice, such as that on Earth’s poles and glaciers, is much more reflective than the blue ocean or most of the land masses. This reflective property is referred to as albedo; the higher the albedo, the more reflective the planet’s surface is.

As Earth loses some of its ice to global warming, the planet’s albedo will decrease. More sunlight will be absorbed rather than reflected back into space, and this will lead to greater amounts of infrared radiation produced.

The heat that results will of course remain trapped within the insulating effects of the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere and contribute to even greater temperature increases. The entire process has the very real possibility of becoming a runaway reaction, feeding into itself with a never-ending cycle of increasing temperatures, melting ice, decreasing albedo, increased absorption of sunlight, increased infrared radiation, increased global temperatures, and so on.

Melting sea ice is one reason the Arctic is considered one of the best and earliest markers of global warming. It’s our canary in the coal mine. (Funny how that phrase also relates to fossil fuels.)

The warming trends in recent years have been concerning indeed, and if we continue to witness greater losses of sea ice in the coming years, I’m afraid the writing will already be on the wall for our planet’s fate. We won’t be trying to prevent a climate crisis any longer. We’ll be trying to minimize it.

If September’s sea ice minimum breaks records, perhaps it’s a sign that point has already come.